Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 02.pdf/400

 Cfte

<§mn

Published Monthly, at $3.00 per annum.

Bag* Single numbers, 35 cents.

Communications in regard to the contents of the Magazine should be addressed to the Editor, Horace W. Fuller, 15A Beacon Street, Boston, Mass. The Editor will be glad to receive contributions of articles of moderate length upon subjects of interest to the profession; also anything in the way of legal antiquities or curiosities, facetid, anecdotes, etc. THE GREEN BAG. OUR thanks are due to Messrs. E. S. Sterry & Co., of Albany, for their courtesy in allow ing us to reproduce their photographs of the First and Second Divisions of the New York Court of Appeals; and thus enabling us to present to our readers the two full-page groups which appear in this number. An admirable article on the Supreme Court of Michigan, written by Henry A. Chaney, Esq., of Detroit, will appear in our September number. The article will be profusely illustrated with por traits of past Chief-Justices and the present Bench. Errata. We regret that one or two typo graphical errors crept into the " Key to Photo graph, New York Court of Appeals," published in our July number. Our readers will please make the following changes : First, the reference letter / should be changed to y; second, in ref erence No. 8, the name should be yohn K. Porter; third, in reference No. 31 the name should be Henry E. Davies. From New York come the following interest ing anecdotes: — Editor of the " Green Rag " : Apropos of the First District Court of New York City, mentioned in the March " Green Bag," a prede cessor of Judge Quinn was a jovial Hibernian named Tom Stewart. One December day back in the "fifties " of this century, the following case was before him. Plaintiff was a manufacturer of tomato ketchup, and had stored three barrels of the raw material in the cellar of defendant. These he had demanded of 48

defendant, but without paying storage; and defend ant held them under his lien until, warm weather coming on, the contents of the barrels exploded, smearing the cellar walls and the neighboring goods with undesirable tomato in a high stage of acetous fermentation. Result, a suit for the alleged value of the raw material, with an answer of general denial, and a counterclaim for damages, of vast proportions. The trial began about 11.30 a.m. There was a recess for lunch, and at 2 p.m. the war recommenced. The utmost latitude was allowed as to the evidence; and the culture and value of the tomato were more fully developed, judicially, than ever before or since in a court of justice. Goddard — father of the present E. Ely Goddard, so well known by his antagonism to Col. E. F. Shepard — was counsel for defendant, and got his innings about 3 o'clock. About 4 p.m. he said, " And now, if it please the Court, we will offer evidence on our counter claim, which if sustained will ruin the plaintiff, who is already on the brink of insolvency." "Stop a moment, Mr. Goddard)" ex claimed Stewart; " how many witnesses shall you examine?" "I have from twelve to fifteen ready, your Honor." The gloom of a winter evening was now ciothing the court-room with obscurity; and the judge rose, shook himself, whirled his arms wildly about his head, and delivered himself: " I 'm all mixed up. There are no merits in this case anyhow. The plaintiff has destroyed my faith in tomato ketchup forever, and I shall never be able to eat a tomato again, raw or stewed. I dismiss the case: defendant may keep the barrels, and have execution for costs, no stay. This court stands adjourned!" In the New York Superior Court, before Judge McCunn, a demurrer was once argued as followsPlaintiff complained on a promissory note for $200. Also, and for a further cause of action that defend ant assaulted plaintiff when plaintiff waited on de fendant to collect the said note, and kicked him down stairs, to plaintiff's damage in the sum of $1,000. Aggregate judgment demanded, §1,200 with interest. Demurrer by defendant's attorney, " Causes of action have been improperly united." Plaintiff's counsel argued that one cause of action grew out of, and was really a part of, the preceding cause of action, " be cause, your Honor, if my client had not held the note, and had not waited on defendant for the pur pose of collecting it, he would n't have been kicked downstairs! "